get-file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the return payload (dimensions, file size, media type, original and preferred-format URLs) and clarifies that it provides URLs rather than file content. It omits error cases and permissions, but for a read-only metadata operation the core behavior is well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that lead with the core operation and immediately list the returned data. No filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple metadata getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks edge-case handling or error behavior, but the essentials are present. The absence of annotations is partially offset by the explicit return field list.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (wiki and title), each with clear meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'uploaded file', with examples like image/PDF. It also notes it returns metadata and URLs, which distinguishes it from sibling upload tools such as upload-file and upload-file-from-url.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the domain ('for an uploaded file') and the return values, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to get-page, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.